Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

[Andres]

As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:


So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.

I assume Bild is the equivalent of Het Laatste Nieuws. It's useful to wipe your with.

[Prussian to the Iron]

in effect there is; you have to be of sound mind, i.e. legally responsible.

what you are talking about doing is removing the right to vote from ~60% of eligible voters, and justifying it based on the idea that your opinions are so nuanced and 'deep' that only people with above average IQ can even comprehend them. worse than that you equate rejection of your opinions as evidence of a reduced intellectual ability, and thus ineligibility to vote.

i have no problem being voted against if there is an intelligent reason for it. but when idiots vote with no logical or intellectual reasoning, it is not ok.

[rvg]

There's no good reason to have minarets. They serve no purpose other than being a point of contention in a pissing contest between the locals and muslims.

[Furunculus]

As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:


So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.

if you refer to the first article; i agree that choosing to be intolerant to your muslims because someone elses muslim are intolerant to someone elses christians is daft.

however, there is plenty of evidence that many Swiss sided with the yes vote because they agreed with their building regulations that attempt to keep architecture 'swiss', and they don't give a damn about other peoples notions of absolute equality which demand that every parallel of potential discrimination be considered before applying a regulation.
the fact that minaret = church tower is irrelevant to the swiss, because their building reg's are designed to keep architecture swiss looking, not christian looking, or gender tolerant, or ethnically compatible, or any other notion.

if you refer to the second article; i disagree, as the premise of the article is that those who may have supported the yes vote for reasons other than support of the building code, did so as a protest against a mainstream political class that refuses to answer to their worries about mass immigration of people different from themselves.

[Furunculus]

I assume Bild is the equivalent of Het Laatste Nieuws. It's useful to wipe your with.

that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?

[miotas]

for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.

But then the issues of those you consider to be "idiots" would be ignored.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.


for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.

Firstly, 105 IQ is above average. So you're IQ'ist.

A minaret is an irrelevant architechural feature in Switzerland, because (if you read the article) they aren't used for the call to prayer anyway. The mean less then Church Bell Towers, which are at least used on Sundays, High Days, Holy Day, Weddings, and during Bell-Ringing contests.

[Andres]

that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?

You're right

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i have no problem being voted against if there is an intelligent reason for it. but when idiots vote with no logical or intellectual reasoning, it is not ok.

Massive assumption, Quid has already given a reasoned explanation of why he voted for the ban.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Massive assumption, Quid has already given a reasoned explanation of why he voted for the ban.

and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.

[rvg]

Speculation of what were the voters thinking when casting their votes is just that: speculation.

[Furunculus]

and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.

are you willing to write off the worth of the referendum on the assumption that Swiss people are baddies?

[Strike For The South]

The Swiss can do what they want but this stinks of authortarinism.

People are supposed to assimalate on there own this will simply be a lightning rod.

[Ja'chyra]

Lol, some of the comments in here are bordering on the ridiculous.

So the Swiss voted to ban minarets, what exactly is wrong with that? As I see it they have their way of running the country which says that the people get to vote on things, at least the people are represented rather than relying on politicians to reflect the peoples wishes, which is impossible so they should be representing the majority of their constituents but how many actually do that?

So who should vote? Why should it only be people with a minimum level of IQ, does having a lower IQ mean you don't have an opinion? Of course it doesn't and as they live in the country then their view is just as valid as anyones. If you do go down that road where should the IQ limit be set, surely a genius should be able to argue that it should be, say, set at the level of his IQ as his decisions will be more rational and thought out than someone with an IQ lower than his, so maybe the most intelligent person in country should just make all the decisions and cut out all the middle men, or citizens are they are sometimes called..

Are the Swiss racist? Going by this vote there is no evidence to suggest they are, if they voted and passed a bill saying that all muslims should be deported then you may have an argument.

In my view saying that the Swiss are racist based on this story is the same as saying, oh I don't know so lets pick one from thin air, all British soldiers are criminals. It's just plain ignorant and bigotted.

[Andres]

The Swiss can do what they want but this stinks of authortarinism.

People are supposed to assimalate on there own this will simply be a lightning rod.

Yeah, evil democracy with its' tyranny of the majority

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

and im fine with that. but do you honestly think the majority of the people who voted for it actually thought about it like that? no.

So you just assume the majoriety of people are ignorant bigots? Rather than assuming that the majoriety of people see a new architechural feature and decide they don't like, and thence ban it?

[Fragony]

So the Swiss voted to ban minarets, what exactly is wrong with that?

Incredibly much, I think Darius summed it up few posts back.

[Ser Clegane]

that might be a foolish assumption to make if you have no basis on which to make that judgement?

As a German I can confirm that "Bild" is a populist piece of yellow press filth with a lot of racist untertones in its "reporting".

@ Prussion Iron:
You seem to have a rather warped sense of democracy. Excluding half of the population based on IQ? Elitist very much...

[Furunculus]

Incredibly much, I think Darius summed it up few posts back.

that people other than the Swiss may perceive this as anti-muslim-religion rather than anti-non-swiss-architecture is their problem, not the Swiss peoples.

As a German I can confirm that "Bild" is a populist piece of yellow press filth with a lot of racist untertones in its "reporting".

cheers for the info, and yet, der spiegel seems to think that Bild's editorial is inline with popular german opinion, and that germany would have given the same result to the same referendum..........?

[Cute Wolf]

Soory to interupt your discussion, but I see the point of the banning Minarets in Swiss you are all missed.... Just read this:
from: http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1103...speaker-noise/

Parvita writes on the topic: Loudspeaker Abuse in the Mosques: should mosques be disciplined?

If you live in Jakarta and look around some of the housing pockets in the area, how many mosques do you find in 5 kilometer radius? Have you ever seen a mosque without a loudspeaker? Have you ever had trouble sleeping because the mosque(s) was/were so loud, not only during adzan?

I stayed for couple of days in my sister's place at Pancoran area. I can hear at least two different adzans, so at least there are two mosques around there. The first night I stayed there, I was awakened by the Adzan Subuh. Which is alright. Then it stopped. But the last couple of days staying there, I was awakened around 3:30am by the sound of somebody reading the Qur'an with very high pitched voice.

It is not only there. At Kuningan, there are also at least 3 mosques using loudspeakers and they don't only use it during adzan, but also for calling each other, announcing who donated money or food, who died, sometimes kids singing, and all other kinds of information that are not really important (maybe for the neighbourhood, but not for all the people living in the apartment, I believe!).

Honestly, I feel bothered. First of all, the loudspeaker in the mosques has been abused. When you call for prayers, that is a reminder. Reading the qur'an loudly, or saying prayers or preachings loudly, that is already bothering other people's privacy. Especially when it is used for other things like calling your friends, that is extremely rude and insensitive; we have no choice to listen or not to listen. Some people still need to sleep, they need to work early and leave work late, and they want to have a decent sleep to be ready for work the next day, and here they are with their loudspeakers. I often wonder, when I need concentration in the office, those people are back in bed, taking a nap. Especially during Ramadhan. Experienced very loud sounds that keep you awake from 2am?

Second of all, is there any rules on how loud a loudspeaker can be, and how far from one mosque can you build another mosque? Check the Tegal Parang area, Warung Buncit. Just walk along the small street and look at how many mosques you see in that small area. A lot. And can you imagine if all of them abuse the use of the loudspeakers? Noise pollution.

Moslem people here believe that when you build a mosque, your merit "points" (pahala) will continue even when you are dead. Some people build mosque so that they are socially uplifted. Even though the Qur'an clearly says that your merit score ends when you are dead. Moslems also believe that to spread the preaching is a must for moslems. The Qur'an clearly says not to 'sell cheap' the teachings (for one example, using the verses when you know people don't want to listen to them). Qur'an also tells that prayers that will be answered are those which are said with humble heart and low/soft voice. So where did they get this idea?

I'm not a believer in hadits, but I remember someone told me that one of the hadits mentioned that the distance between building one mosque and another is when the adzan cannot be heard from the previous mosque. That makes sense. I wonder if there is any regulation in Jakarta for building mosques. Seems like there isn't.

Call me what you want, I am a moslem myself, I say my prayers, but me, my parents, my siblings living around Jakarta, and my other friends who are moslems, they feel bothered. But nobody goes to the mosque and complains. Of course nobody dares. What is the use of pointing out what is written in the Qur'an to them?

Well, the problem is noise pollution comes from not only the 5 times Adzans (call to prayers), but also their quranic recitals, prayers, and often sudden verses reading in the night... I lived in Indonesia, and yes, every night you'll get uneasy sleep because your nearest mosque suddenly calls or reads something... in the midnight, very loudly... even with the nearest mosque was about 500m from my house in Bandung, the noise is very disturbing, even to their fellow non "hardliner" muslims that didn't had "sholat tahajud" in the midnight, and didn't want to wake up from their sleep because someone in the mosque read quran... Fortunely, since 2 years ago, my government issue a ban on etremely loud mosque speakers, because the less religious people complained about their noisy pollution here... I think the swiss government may have goes too far in that case, but I agree with them as long as they only said about "sound control".

The Church may rang their bells too loud, but at least they rang it only once day for a week, while mosques' minarets shout their calls 5 times a day, and one in the midnight, and even (if the mosques has some extremely religious person live nearby) unpredictable recitals everyday....

It wasn't about discrimination, it was about the prospect of "sound pollution"
- And telling the mosques to calm their sounds can't be done in gentle way... as they only stop their too loud calls when the police start consficating their sound equipment here... And if that happened on Swiss (they allready got their freedom to calls out too loud) they'll accuse the governent of Human Rights violation later when the police starts consficating their Speakers and megaphone... better stop them before they grows uncontrollable...

[Ser Clegane]

and yet, der spiegel seems to think that Bild's editorial is inline with popular german opinion, and that germany would have given the same result to the same referendum..........?

Quite frankly - if we had such a referendum here in Germany, I would not be surprised to see an outcome very similar to that in Switzerland.
While "Bild" might be correct with this assessment, my problem with this "newspaper" is that they would certainly also try to incfluence the public opinion to get the same result as in Switzerland.

Personally, I would object to such a general ban of minarets - the construction of minarets should be subject to case by case decisions just like every other construction project.
Minarets should not get special treatment - neither in a positive nor in a negative way.

But in the end I have to agree with you - it was a democratic decision by the Swiss and the other side apparently failed to make a compelling argument for their case...

[Andres]

Personally, I would object to such a general ban of minarets - the construction of minarets should be subject to case by case decisions just like every other construction project.

I agree that that would be better. Maybe the Swiss would have decided likewise if it would have been an option, but it seems like nobody thought of putting in the option "let the local authorities decide case by case" in the referendum.

It was apparently a yes or no question and the Swiss decided "no" and it was a democratic decision.

What I dislike is that people jump to conclusions too hastily. Voting no against minarets doesn't make one a racist.

[Ser Clegane]

but I see the point of the banning Minarets in Swiss you are all missed..

I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).

Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.

[Cute Wolf]

I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).

Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.

Yeah... If you shout something loud in the ground level at night, your sound will be dissipated rather quickly by density gradation made by cooler temperature at base level (so the sounds will dissipated by travelling under the ground), but if you built minarets, the sounds will be greatly amplified downward through the same principle in the air (the amplitudo downwards is greater than voice amplitudo upwards, resulting in much louder sound wave to the ground level, which made their sounds extremely noisy at night)... this is Sound Wave Physics afterall... The Call for Prayer in the ground level is much gentler to hear than the one from minarets

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As a response to Furunculus' quote of Der Spiegel:


So in fact they are suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims, as Muslims are supposedly intolerant agaisnt Christians (?). You don't answer intolerance by intolerance, as you don't put out a fire by pouring more four upon it. It will simply consume everything in its path.

Technically, fighting fire with fire is one of the best ways to put it out.

[Kralizec]

Food for thought (Devil's (?) advocate)

1) What discrimination? The "no" against minarettes is for everybody, not just muslims; atheists and Christians can't build them either. Religion is a private matter. That your religious desires interfere with certain legislation is unfortunate, but since the government is secular and a-religion, it doesn't matter. Why the outcries of "racism" and "discrimination"?

I think that barring gay marriage is a form of discrimination. Some disagree, because gay people can still marry people of the opposite gender and straight people can't marry people of their own gender either.
If it had been a generic description of standards every building has to conform to, you'd have a point. But the wording of the amendment makes it clear that it's discriminative in both intent and practice.

Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.

Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)

2) Granted, some people probably voted no because they don't like muslims, but who are we to judge? Are we mind readers? Because some right wing idiots made distasteful pamflets, you all asume the Swiss are muslim haters and all Swiss who voted no did so because they don't like Islam? Who are we to say that the majority of those who voted no didn't do so because they simply don't like minarettes out of aestethical reasons or because they are in favour of Swiss building laws as mentioned by Quid?

I agree, I doubt that the majority of Swiss are xenophobes. But if I thought that minarets were butt ugly and wanted them gone, I still wouldn't have voted for a law that would accomplish that by specifically targetting one group of people, and wich is a treated as a trophy by racist politicians ~

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Swiss can do what they want

No they can't.

Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.


We'll see if this referendum holds up in court.

Me, I am still very torn.

[Crazed Rabbit]

the problem with swiss direct democracy is that every idiot, every anti-muslim, gets an equal vote.


for direct democracy to work, there needs to be some sort of intelligence restriction. like your I.Q. has to be at least 105. that way only people who know what they are doing have an effect on the country.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can't say that the people who voted for this did so because they disliked Islam. Nor can you even say the people who did vote against it because they dislike Islam are stupid. They may be quite smart (in IQ terms, not about reasons for voting).

It is a huge fallacy to think that most of the 'smarter' people agree with you. And hugely discriminatory to prevent people from voting because they fall below some arbitrary level in a shoddy test.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No they can't.

Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.

I agree, but if this is a matter of taste, then majority rule has to apply in a democracy. You can argue that people should care less about matters of taste, but it's kind of arbitrary what you care about and what you don't, so

[Fragony]

I actually doubt that a regular call to prayers (especially during the night) is regularly practiced at existing mosques in Switzerland (perhaps quid can shed a light on this point).

Apart from that - even without a minaret you can probably still make your "call to prayer". Only the minarets have been banned, mosques can still be built.

You don't see his point